Arrest,Search+&+Seizure

=Arrest,Search & Seizure=

****search. What is the legal reasoning behind these procedures****
media type="youtube" key="OoAeeWW5lws" height="385" width="480"

**Monday 5/17- Assignment completed and submitted by the end of the period.**
1. Create a document in google docs and share it with Mr. Sagan. 2. Answer the four focus for discussion cases and include a reason for each answer. 3. Read the Wardlow case. Wardlow and his attorney contended that the pat-down search violated the Fourth Amendment's right against unreasonable search and seizure because the police had no reasonable cause to stop him. What's your opinion? 4. Read Illinois v. Wardlow **— Background to the Fourth Amendment** 5. What are the facts in the Terry V Ohio case? What was the Supreme Court's ruling? 6.Using your knowledge of the terry case, was the Wardlow search legal? Explain your reasoning. 7. Describe two searches that a police officer is permitted to perform during a "Terry " stop. 8. What is the "Miranda Warning"? When is it necessary to inform someone of their "Miranda rights"? 9. What three forms of ID are drivers expected to have with them when they are driving a vehicle? 10. What is a field sobriety test? When is it performed? What are two examples of a field sobriety test? 11. What is the legal B.A.C. limit for DUI? Underage drinking?

__Continuum of Standards of Proof__ Mere Encounter Reasonable Suspicion Probable Cause Prima Facie Preponderance of Evidence Beyond A Reasonable Doubt


 * Focus Scenarios for Discussion**

Imagine that you are a police officer. The law gives you the right to stop a person who is acting suspiciously in order to conduct a brief investigation to determine whether a crime is taking place or is about to take place. However, you must be able to cite specific facts to support your position. You cannot stop someone on a hunch.

Read through the following scenarios and determine, in your opinion, whether or not you would stop those involved to conduct an investigation.

Write “Y” if you would stop the person and “N” if you would not stop the person. Be ready to explain your reasoning. _ 1. A woman standing on a corner gives a clear bag with a white substance to a man who gives her money in exchange.
 * Explain:**

_ 2. A young man is walking down the street dressed in gang colors.
 * Explain:**

_ 3. One man walks up a street, peers into a store, and continues walking. He then comes back and looks into the same store. He meets a companion who also peers into the window of the store. The two of them continue walking back and forth checking out the store several more times before following a third man up the street. _ 4. As you are driving down the street, you notice a woman running away from you. **Explain:**
 * Explain:**

Consource Bill of Rights []

Lark Affidavit [|Lark affidavit.doc]


 * //Illinois v. Wardlow// — Background Information**

Sam Wardlow, a 44 year-old-black man, was standing on a sidewalk in what is considered one of Chicago's high-crime areas when four police cars containing eight officers came into sight. Though Wardlow was not doing anything visibly suspicious, he fled the scene when he saw the police officers. Timothy Nolan, a veteran police officer, chased Wardlow. They believed that his flight indicated unlawful activity since Wardlow was in what the officers believed to be a high-crime area. They caught Wardlow and frisked him During the pat-down search, the two officers found a handgun.
 * The Case Facts**

Wardlow was charged in the Cook County Circuit Court with several counts of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and unlawful use of a weapon. His attorney filed a motion to have the gun evidence suppressed befo the trial. Wardlow and his attorney contended that the pat-down search violated the Fourth Amendment's right against unreasonable search and seizure because the police had no reasonable cause to stop him.

However, the motion was denied by the trial court. The court found that, although Wardlow was not engaging in a crime or acting otherwise suspiciously, the combination of Wardlow’s flight and the knowledge that drug and weapons are commonly carried in the area justified the stop and frisk by the police.

The evidence was then allowed in court. Wardlow was convicted for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. He appealed his case to the Illinois Appellate Court. That court unanimously ruled in Wardlow’s favor, reversing the lower court decision. The appeals court ruled that there was not enough evidence to s the police allegations that Wardlow was in a high-crime area. That being the case, the officers could no stop Wardlow for simply fleeing the scene.

This time the State of Illinois appealed the case to the Illinois Supreme Court. That court sided unanimously with Wardlow, affirming the appellate court’s decision. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court that the area where they saw Wardlow was indeed a high-crime area; however, this did not justify the stop-and-frisk. The Illinois Supreme Court declared that the search violated the Four ===** Amendment. The State of Illinois then appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States. **===

= Illinois v. Wardlow **— Background to the Fourth Amendment**=

** //The Fourth Amendment// **
====//The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. — Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution//====

==** The Fourth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to protect people from unreasonable and arbitrary **== ==** intrusion on their privacy by the government. It sets out broad guidelines for police searches of persons and **== ==** property that searches can be conducted with a warrant and they must be reasonable however the courts **== ==** have had to make significant interpretations of the Fourth Amendment over time. For instance, it is not **== ==** always clear what a reasonable search is; the courts must examine the facts and circumstances of each case **== ==** to determine if the search was reasonable. In addition, the courts have found that some searches can be **==

**//When can police stop a person and conduct a frisk?//**
==** At the time the Wardlow case was heard, past courts had determined that the police were allowed to conduct a warrantless stop-and-frisk search if the officer saw the person acting suspiciously or had reason to believe the person was likely to be armed. A frisk is a brief search of a person with the aim of determining whether the person is armed. It is not a full search. Instead, it is a pat-down of the outer clothing. The rule allowing a stop-and-frisk in certain circumstances came from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Terry v. Ohio **==

** (1968). The Court said **
==** “Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquires, ... he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person's in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.” (p. 30) ns in **==

====The Terry decision requires that police have reasonable cause to conduct a stop-and-frisk. This is a lower standard of proof than probable cause. In determining whether there is reasonable cause to stop a person the police must be able to point to specific and articulable facts that support the inference of suspicion. In other words, the police cannot act on gut feelings. The consequence of this lower standard is that police can stop-and-frisk when they have a suspicion, grounded in concrete facts, that illegal activity may be taking place, or about to take place. They do not have to see the illegal activity itself. In Sam Wardlow’s case, the only indication that the police had of suspicious activity was Wardlow’s flight from the police. He was not engaged in other activity, nor did they have any indication he was carrying a gun==== ====The question then became **__whether Wardlow’s flight from the police was reason enough to justify a stop and__** __frisk__. **The State of Illinois claims in this case that fleeing from police officers is suspicious in and of itself. In case the court doesn’t agree, Illinois also claims that a person’s flight in combination with the surroundings for a high-crime area are enough to make the fleeing person suspicious. On the other hand, Wardlow claims that there are many reasons a person might flee at the sight of police, making it impossible to determine**==== ====suspicion or not. Ambiguities like these make search and seizure law very complex and force the courts to address the law on a case-by-case basis. This is why it is very important to examine carefully the circumstances of the Wardlow cas====